mailboxes.delete_bulkDelete several mailboxes at once by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Mailbox IDs to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| http_status | Yes | HTTP status of the API response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the harmful nature is disclosed. The description adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or partial failure behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that uses no filler and conveys the operation, target, quantity, and input method. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one simple parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention whether deletions are permanent or how partial failures are handled, but nothing critical is missing for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the 'ids' parameter is already fully documented. The description's 'by ID' phrase aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('mailboxes'), a scope ('several at once'), and a method ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from single-mailbox deletion and from other bulk-delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description communicates the intended use: bulk deletion of several mailboxes in one call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.